"Seek ye first..." - A lesson in motivation

Motivation is the psychological process of directing one's personal resources (called effort) towards a behavior in anticipation of an outcome. The first thing you should notice from this definition is that motivation has no meaning except as it is attached to a behavior and its expected outcome. 

Next most important learning about motivation is there are two primary influences that determine direction and extent of effort. These are what's called valence and saliency.

Valence is the most commonly known influence. This represents the expected value of the outcome derived from the behavior. Effort occurs when valence is a positive take on what you get for what you do. The lesser known, but more powerful factor, is called saliency. Saliency is difficult to describe. Thus, saliency is difficult to identify. Saliency is basically that which is top of mind for the individual. Saliency includes how relevant the behavior and outcome are to you. Often saliency is the extent of awareness you have of the outcome. The perception of risk and fairness associated with the outcome of the action taken can also affect saliency of a behavior for you.

For example, marketing is the activity of drawing others' behavior toward your idea, product or service. While much marketing focuses attention on valence, it is actually saliency that is working. When someone chooses "me", is it because they value "me" more or because they think of "me" first or mostly? 

Jesus had fantastic teaching about motivation. I like to use His view when I teach motivation to others.

In Jesus' most famous sermon He references both valence and saliency. He says, "for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Your treasure is your valence, what you value. Heart is the seat of your motives. So, valence or value guides motivation.

However, later on in the sermon, to put a punctuation mark on motivation, He says, "seek ye first..". What He's pointing to here is the question, "what is it that is preeminent in your mind?" What is top of mind? Jesus claims that everything that comes to you starts with what you "seek first." Moreover, Jesus is providing a contrast to what you are likely to "seek first" in pursuit of what you want. Jesus understands motivation. Jesus understands saliency.

Now, valence and saliency are somewhat related, but until saliency of a behavior and its associated outcome is present, motivation toward that behavior/outcome is stunted and maybe even absent. For instance, you may value good health but are not exercising because exercising is not top of mind for some reason. Exercising is not salient to you although you may value its outcome.

Jesus teaches using contradictions. If He selects God's Kingdom as the most top of mind outcome for His people, what options for saliency is He warning against? Here are a few I have seen in people whether they are Christians or not:

to be happy or satisfied

to belong or loved (liked/accepted/popular)

to be right or know the truth (doctrinally correct)

to be a good person or virtuous (be kind, courageous, helpful)

to be just or fair  

to have power or control

to serve or sacrifice

to be obey the rules or do what's expected

As saliency varies from person to person, saliency divides. It does not unite. I could write volumes on how saliency is the reason we have political parties, church denominations, clash of cultures, and systems of education and health care.

If you are not a Christian, why would you trust what you have made salient to you to deliver what you want? If you are a Christian, what would your life be like if His Kingdom was what was most top of mind to you and not one of these other possibilities that occupy your mind?

While saliency is not a word you may be familiar with or believe matters to you, it is possible saliency or what you "seek first" means everything to you. Saliency is what determines your motivations and most everyone would agree motivation is important.

My pet peeve

 

This blog is about a pet peeve of mind, that has been with me for years and shows up almost every day, everywhere. A pet peeve is defined as something that a particular person finds annoying.

One of mine is how people in power unfairly consider an opposing argument to get their way. 

In this blog I share a few examples for you to ponder a pet peeve that really annoys me. It might annoy you, too.

One time I was in an executive team meeting. We were discussing a business issue. The President of our company made his point. One of the team members challenged that point with a counter point. There was some data involved as evidence on both sides, but each argument was mainly supported by gut feel or opinion. After the discussion lasted a while with no resolution, it took mainly the form of an argument. Guess who won? The President, the one with the power. He concluded with, "where's your data?" While gut feel was enough support for ideas of the one in power, it was not enough for the opposing view. This is a case where power produced an unlevel playing field. What was good for the one with power was not good for the one without. In my view, this is a form of bullying that occurs all the time.

Take the political arena. Who wields the most power? I would say it's the media, both mainstream for older adults and social for younger ones. There's an argument that can be made that one side of the political debate is way more powerful than the other. Maybe that in itself is a pet peeve of mine.

In any case, how does this idea of bullying by tilting the playing field occur? Well, here's one instant that blows my mind. One side makes an off the cuff comment that is objectionable to many. If the person who says this is supported by the powerbase, then the comment is acknowledge by the media as just something made in jest, a joke, a comedic slur. If the comment is made by one NOT in power, then the comment is considered dogma, potential policy, a deeply held belief, so the power base can gain public sentiment their way. 

The media produces an unlevel playing field. They use an unfair technique to bully those that they disagree. I see it in our public arena just like it occurs in every organization.

I just think it would be wise for you to be annoyed by bullying this way and make it one of your pet peeves, too. 

 

Identity Matters

 “Just be true to yourself.” “Find your authentic self.” Why do people obsess over “self-expression”? The now deceased thought leader Tim Kellar wrote, “The modern self is exceptionally fragile. You and you alone must create and sustain your identity. This has contributed to unprecedented levels of depression and anxiety.” The Imposter Syndrome is an identity malfunction people point to as a source of stress and dissatisfaction. So, what is it about identity that matters?  

First, identity is the comprehensive, existential sense of self.  Everyone must trust some label in their quest to answer the question, “who am I?” But labels separate us. Oppressed vs oppressor fuels protests. The top 1% is a tax target. Self-concept, which is the functional identity, is the complex set of factors like self-esteem and biases that determine how you see yourself and understand others. Your identity is what you trust for your feelings, thoughts and choices. People struggle with stress and mental health but don’t see identity as the problem. Social experiments to elevate people by diverse identities fail to produce DEI. People want unity, love and peace but never grasp how the diversity of identity divides. 

So, why does it? Think about it, ever said, “they deserve it” or “it’s not fair.” Identity drives perception. Identity judges. To gain power and feel important, people use justice to weaponize racism, sexual orientation, wealth and poverty, education, success, status, and nationality. How common is “the cancel culture” and “identity politics”? Antisemitism and Islamophobia are threatening the survival of institutions. While people desire to be different, there is ONE thing in common with each of us regardless of identity. Know what it is? An obsession with justice. Without ever thinking about it, you rely on a fair exchange that fits your identity. People depend on transactions for their happiness, acceptance and belonging. Fairness is subjective, it depends on the identity you trust. People view something as right or wrong depending on whether they perceive it’s fair or not. This is so natural we never think about it. It is your bias called social exchange. All relationships are held together by the perceived value that passes between them. Love is transactional. This is a semester worth of discussion. The world uses identity and justice to create chaos, confusion, and power struggles that keep people divided. People say they want UNITY but find it FUTILE. When people order their lives with an identity in this world essentially, they are “trying to swim better in the wrong pool.”

Put a pin here and let’s go a different direction. I identify as a Christian. I desire God’s view of identity. Guess what, the Bible is full of God’s idea of “self.” Since identity is important, it is no wonder it is a central theme of Scripture.  Being “hidden in Christ” is what God wants me to know about myself. Jesus’ teaching on the vine and the branches and Paul’s teaching on the body point to ONE identity that results in unity, not futility. Paul says, in Christ there are neither male nor female, slave or free, Jew or gentile. No matter how much the world desires unity, there is no unity to be had except for the one found in Christ. Let’s keep moving.

The cross is God’s action of grace and mercy that removes the control fair exchange has over the soul. The invitation to repentance is a call to trust a totally different identity, a total about face in how you think, feel and choose what’s right and what is hope. The “good news” cancels the bias for transactions that is built into the very nature of all humans. God is the ONLY judge. LOVE is never transactional, balanced, or fair. God offers, free of charge, satisfaction and acceptance. The privileges and provisions of His Kingdom are willfully and generously given to all who take on (trust) the identity of His Son.   

So, I leave you with this one question. Is your identity embedded in Christ or are you trusting some worldly label? Every person, including everyone in this room tonight, trusts something or someone for their identity. I have always been good at figuring out life according to the world’s standard. In my power I trusted my own quest for truth, universal principles I could rationalize from what I observed. Like people I met, I always had doubt if I know that I know that I know. Basically, I trusted in myself to transact fairly, economically, politically and relationally for a full and happy life. I failed miserably. I found this to be futile. I realized that I was trying to swim better in the wrong pool. Is this you, too? Have you thought, “Is there a better way”? So, think, which is more likely – unity will come from a diverse set of “self expression” trusting their own power to come together as one or a diverse expressions of self powered by a trust in ONE identity? You have the opportunity to bring a different kind of hope to people you know who are trying to swim better in the wrong pool. 

Presence not presents

 We are moving into the holidays. Everyone seems to be focused on Black Friday, a great time to buy their Christmas presents. Afterall, isn't that what Christmas is all about - GIVING presents to family, friends, and the 'needy'? 

Maybe there is another way to view Christmas. Maybe it's more about presence? "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Jesus, the Word, the ultimate rationale, became physically present to the world. This was God's strategy, to be present. However, was Jesus more than just physically on earth? Is the presence of God beyond just a physical person? Christmas may be more about receiving God's presence, Jesus, as a gift to our soul rather than us giving each other physical presents?

We hear some people claim their life's goal is to "show up." Does this mean "being present"? What does this all mean to us as we desire to be strategic, win, be successful in life?

Being present (instead of giving presents) likely starts with our view of time. Sometimes we call this, "being in the moment." But, what does moment mean? The definition is "a specific instant or point in time." Practically speaking, "being in the moment" is focusing on the time that is right now. Literally speaking, we can never be physically anywhere but in the moment. So, why do we emphasize "being present" or "in the moment" if we cannot be otherwise? 

Good question.

The idea of "being present" must mean something other than physical presence. This only leaves emotional, cognitive and willful presence. Let's explore this psychological idea of "being present" vs the physical. You may feel this is deep, but its more just you hadn't thought about time in this way often, if at all.

St Augustine believed how we view time is very important. He wrote about time in his famous autobiographical essays called "Confessions." Augustine claims that there is no such thing as now or "the present." Follow me here, this can have profound impact for you. It's not just a mental exercise.

Augustine believed (and I'm paraphrasing) that once the present is here now becomes the past and right before now happens, the present moment is the future. A mathematician would say it this way, "now is the least upper bound of all instances of gaps in time between now and past instances and the lower bound of all instances of gaps in time between now and future instances. So, the present does not exist itself but is the 'limit' (math term) on two converging series of time lapses from now of moments in time, the past and future."

You may be totally confused by now, but that's ok. Here is why this is important strategically for you even if you don't understand present this way.  

With respect to time, the instances that are most salient or relevant to you are the ones that just happened and the ones about to happen. These are the aspects of time that should most influence your thoughts, emotions and choices. "Being in the moment" is having you attention focused mainly, if not entirely, on the immediate moments around now. Learning from the instances that has just occurred and preparing for the instances that will occur in a very short order. 

Navy Seals are taught this about "being in the moment." When Jesus says, "Seek ye first" he is referencing what should be the most salient to us, or to be that which occupies our mind above all other things. It may be why He follows this with, "don't be anxious about tomorrow."

So, what did God do at what we celebrate as Christmas? He became present. This was His greatest love for us. So then, what can we best do for those we love? Be present rather than give presents. What is the best strategy for life? Is not the right planning so that spectacular things occur in the future but rather spectacular presence that delivers the right future.

 

"The Irrational"

 NBC has a new TV series this year called "The Irrational". I find that title to be intriguing so I've been thinking about what we might see. According to the preview of the show, we find this, "Alec Mercer is a world-renowned leader in behavioral science who lends his expertise to an array of high-stakes cases involving governments, law enforcement, and corporations with his unique and unexpected approach to understanding human behavior." 

This tv series is about a "unique and unexpected approach to understanding." Is he really being "irrational"? The 1828 Webster dictionary defines irrational as "void reason." Doesn't seem like "The Irrational" showcases someone void reason, but rather someone who uses different reason that what we might expect. 

Is it possible that we claim someone is irrational (stupid, misguided, wrong, unfair, etc.) when they use an approach that reaches conclusions differently or unexpected from what we would conclude?  

Bertrand Russel, noted mathematician and philosopher once wrote this about rationality, “If you wish to become a philosopher, the first thing to realise is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”

Is he right? Do most people "go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification"? I say "NO." Does anyone have a corner on truth because of their rationality? Again, I say "NO."

Then, how do I view or understand "rationality"? The issue with two people coming to two different conclusions is not that one is "void reason." But rather, each person started from a different point. This starting point is called bias or core assumption. It is an endearing belief that is never questioned but used to process ideas rationally.

So, how does this work? Here's some examples:

The reason political conservatives and liberals disagree on policy is not that one is rational and one is not (although that's the argument normally used). The difference is their core assumption about which institution can best meet society's needs. Conservatives assume private markets can, liberals assume government can. Both are rational, both are moral, but each have a different bias on who is best to solve society's problems.

When I was in the Coca-cola system, the bottlers constantly bumped heads with the Coca-cola parent company. My boss at a major bottler would constantly view the parent company as irrational (stupid was normally what he said). I found that neither was irrational, both were smart people who could apply reason in their arguments. It was that each operated from a different business model, which determined core assumptions on what, how and why things needed to be done as they thought best.

Let's try this on something more difficult and complex. Are the Muslims who seek to destroy Western civilization irrational? Is flying planes into buildings killing many including themselves "void of reason"? Is Russia's attacks on Ukraine and Hamas' attacks on Israel irrational, stupid, wrong, etc.?

It certainly appears to those who value Western Civilization that these actions are totally without reason. These actions are seen as wrong, unfair, maybe even evil. Is it possible that there is plenty of reason in these actions but that the rational process sits on top of totally different assumptions about civilization? Is it possible that reason sits on top of tribal biases?

So, why would Bertrand believe that many people are irrational, not interested in truth? It's likely he saw his rationality superior to many others because his conclusions came from biases he had different from others. It's likely the case some people have a greater capacity to think critically and process rationally. Bertrand is likely correct in that people are comfortable with thoughts that match their bias. But this doesn't make them rational and others irrational.

I tend to like the premise of the new TV series "The Irrational." It's biases people have that constrain the expected conclusions they reach. Being "irrational" may simply be a rational process based on biases not commonly held by others and finding answers that others cannot see or undertsand due to their biases.

What was King Solomon thinking?

 

Recently a friend was sharing with me about a sermon series from church on Proverbs. He was relishing in how well the pastor was prepared and how much he was getting from the pastor's teaching. I agreed that I am aware of the hundreds of books written and sermons given on Proverbs. I know many people over the years that look to Proverbs for guidance in what/how they should do to prosper (some materially and some spiritually). 

Being the disruptor I am, I asked him one simple question, "Wasn't Ecclesiastes and Proverbs both supposedly written by King Solomon?" Not only was my friend not prepared for this question, he was somewhat puzzled by it. How could this question have anything to do with the excitement he felt in sharing about the lessons he was getting from Proverbs?

Then I asked, "if Ecclesiastes was Solomon's message to the ages that everything 'under the sun' is vanity (a vapor that does not last), then is wisdom found in Proverbs not 'vanity'?"

I could see him starting to connect the dots. After all, Proverbs has been admired for centuries for its lessons on wisdom and at the same time Ecclesiastes has also been admired for its message that nothing in this world delivers what man ultimately needs (wants).

Does the 'nothing delivers' of Ecclesiastes include the wisdom of Proverbs?

"I'm not ready yet to see Proverbs as 'vanity of vanities,' but I have to admit that I am a bit confused," was my response back to friend as he sought my mutual excitement of Proverbs.

"What was Solomon thinking?" I thought.

Moreover, has any pastor or theologian over the years even thought about the apparent contradictions of King Solomon. There are now more questions I would like to see Bible teachers explore, starting with this one: 

Since many believe Ecclesiastes was written toward the end of Solomon's life and follows Proverbs in order in the Bible, was Solomon having second thoughts about his views expressed in Proverbs? This happens to all the great people of history. As one ages his/her perspective can change. This certainly has happened to me.

If this is the case, should we hold Proverbs to such a high standard? Should Christians cling to Solomon's words on wisdom as they now do, if in the final analysis, wisdom as a guiding virtue of life in this world (under the sun) is vanity?

It's like Solomon is saying in Proverbs, "here's how to swim better," and then in Ecclesiastes, "but you're swimming in the wrong pool."

Did Solomon reconcile these two the benefit of proverbs and the impossibility of Proverbs like this, "man does not fulfil the law by doing, but the law is fulfilled in Jesus"? 

At this point I am just asking questions, but I would find it useful for a pastor or theologian to step back, ponder and pontificate for us "just what was King Solomon thinking?"

Spiritual lessons of pilates

 

"cinch your stomach," "pretend someone is punching you in the gut," "make your tailbone heavy," "look out, not down," "make your feet parallel, in line with your knees," "shoulders down," "chest flat."

These (and many more) are constant reminders from my pilates instructor to make my body do what it normally will not do on its own. My mind naturally sends the wrong signals to my body. By wrong, I mean, not as it was designed. I naturally slump, look down when I walk (ever seen four old men walk off of a golf green together?), stand incorrectly, use muscles from my extremities, not my core. By not pushing into my core, I do not gain the benefits of my strength. By proper alignment, rotation, flexibility, and appropriates sources of my strength, everything works better (including my golf swing). 

Such is pilates. 

Oddly, likewise are the challenges of my spiritual walk.

My nature is to "walk according to the flesh." Paul tells me that in Romans 7 and 8, but I know it from years of experience. I operate in social exchange. I seek what is fair. I need to be in control to make life work as I want. I am anxious and fearful it will not. I seek to confirm my built in biases and judge harshly that which does not. I want things as I want them and blame something or someone else  "out there" when they are not. Such is human nature (the flesh). It is fallen, flawed, futile. The flesh is naturally ever present.

Jesus said, "when I leave, a Helper will come." I need that Helper, just like I need Becky, my pilates instructor, constantly reminding me of how my nature is making my body more and more futile. Becky provides an influence to trust my core, not my nature. When I'm on my own, her instruction rings in my mind as a reminder of how my body was designed to work properly.

The Helper is the Holy Spirit. "Walking according to the Spirit" is a constant reminder from God I have a core strength I can rely on. At times I don't sense the Holy Spirit is actively instructing me. Its then I can trust the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies which have been freely and willfully bestowed on me by the King.

My new perspective (the Bible calls "epignosis") is how I order my life. If pilates is conforming the body to follow the instructions of the mind, a knowledge of how the body works best. "Walking according to the Spirit" is a life lived by the constant presence of the Holy Spirit conforming my mind to my new life in the Kingdom. Again Paul says, "do not be conformed to your natural tendencies, but be transformed by a brand new mind," a mind under the influence of the Spirit. 

My body is better off in this world with pilates. My soul is forever better off with the Spirit.

Ponder that ....